* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 04:03:33PM CEST: > >>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > RW> I'm pretty sure users will be confused about this error message -- > RW> I even was. I think the one below would be a bit better.
> I'm wary of suggesting to run `aclocal' as some people will feel > compelled to run it as-is, without the necessary -I, and then > send us hate mails. Yes, that's not a good outcome. > ISTR you complained against gettextize for something similar some days > ago. Yes. I hope you didn't mean to imply that that was a hate mail. > Personally I'd love to be able > to suggest autoreconf, but its use is unfortunately not universal. Yep. :-/ > How about something like this: > > aclocal.m4:17: error: this file was generated for autoconf 2.60. > You have another version of autoconf. If you want to use that, you > should regenerate the build system entirely. > aclocal.m4:17: the top level Yeah, I guess that's good enough. I've just used that and applied it. > and we let the user choose its preferred course for regen? Well, it may still generate maintenance traffic, but I guess that's difficult to avoid. (And if not for that message, then the same question arises in other circumstances.) > Or was there another source of confusion you were trying to address? Nope. Cheers, Ralf
